But that doesn't mean that cell type number isn't thus increased.
>
>>Once in a while a population breaks out of a local maximum and finds
>>another local maximum. And those that have moved on to other maximum are
>>now called by other names.
>
>Is there any experimental evidence to back this up? That is, I'd
>be interested in papers where the number of cell types has been
>*observed* to increase through evolution.
What do you mean by observed? If you mean within the past 50 years? I
would doubt it. But then you can't see a contininent move by watching it
for a year. And you can't observe a glacier moving by watching it for 30
seconds. Long term phenomenon require long-term observation. This idea
that we must be there personally to observe something in order for it to be
true is just silly. Were you there in Detroit when they made your
automobile? How do you know it was made?
If on the otherhand one can use observations of past events and gather data
in that way, then yes the cellular type number has been observed. What you
don't want to do is use observation of the past. Yet you then
inconsistently would agree with astronomical observations in which
everything is an observation of the past--nothing observed is as it is at
present. Or am I wrong and you really do reject all astronomical knowledge
because it is from the past? And by the way, do you think that
observations of the past behavior of criminals at crime scenes should not
be used to convict them? Afterall, we weren't at most crime sites to see
the crime committed.
>
>>Thus evolution has increased the number of
>>cellular types by evolving worms into chordates, chordates into fish, fish
>>into amphibia, amphibia into reptiles and reptiles into mammals and birds.
>
>Yes, but keep in mind that only one lineage of fish gave rise to amphibians.
>The *vast* majority of fish evolution (ASAIK) doesn't entail this increase
>in cell types (the same point could be made for each step along your
>transitional series).
So? I don't see what is such a big deal about that. Probabilistically it
is unlikely that I will win the lottery and retire to Colorado. Yet one or
two people will win the lottery. Maybe there is something special about
their lineage. What do you suppose it is? Please tell me so I can win the
lottery.
>
>>So, the answer to your question, like Mike's is that evolution has been
>>busy turning worms into men.
>
>Clearly suggesting there is something quite special about this transitional
>series given that evolution hasn't been nearly as busy anywhere else in
>life's history. In fact, I think I hear an echo of Van Till's "fully gifted"
>view here.
I like Van Till's 'fully gifted creation'. That is close to what I
believe. But that doesn't mean that God can't use chance to gift his
creation to create us.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution